Quote:

---

crunchytoast said:
how does one resolve it?

---

Quote:

---

yet this would be impossible with all people according to my theory, since some people repress feeling lonely.

---

You have absolutely no basis that some people repress feeling lonely. It certainly is a possibillity. You refute that it would be impossible to demonstrate that a person will experience a state of loneliness when they are without companionship, but by the exact same reasoning, it would be impossible to conclude that some people repress that loneliness. You are digging your own grave, my friend.

Quote:

---

  i'm extrapolating from the fact that most people repress sometimes, and that most people report loneliness when emotionally isolated, that the people who do not report loneliness a) feel it and b) repress it.  this doesn't necessarily follow, but it's the most parsimonious explanation for the phenomena.

---

I would strongly suggest that you use the term "lazy" in place of the term "parsimonious" that appears to be the cornerstone of your arguement. When it becomes difficult to analyze whether or not someone is not repressing but instead actively reprogramming their mind in order to remove the mechanism responsible for the experience that you suggest is being repressed in the first place, you simply conclude that they are repressing as it is a simpler, easier explanation. That is not an effective, responsible, scientific way to prove any reasonable point.

Quote:

---

emotions aren't always evident in behavior.  professional poker players can keep a straight face despite experiencing numerous emotions; yet even such trained face-readers as fellow professional poker players often fail to see through this mask.

---

Quote:

---

for animals who lack the expressive capacity of a human face, it must be so much harder to interpret emotion.

---

Quote:

---

most people exeperience loneliness when deprived of companions.

---

Quote:

---

  why these individuals have evolved with this capacity

---

Quote:

---

if it did not denote an underlying need, much like hunger denotes an underlying need?  we are social animals.  thus it's unlikely that loneliness is purely the result of thought patterns.

---

Quote:

---

secondly, repression can explain the thought pattern phenomena you describe.  using occam's razor, it's much more likely that repression underlies this, than that this phenomena is a unique extra principle in the system.

---

Your entire arguement is only supported by the occam's razor that you are not even properly utilizing. As Veritas commented upon, ""Multiples should not be used if not needed.". Severe flaws in your proposal (no actual demonstration why self-therapy is actually repression, most notably ) outline the fact that more variables need to be used. What exactly are you basing your entire contention that the concept of self-therapy and resolution of negative experiences is not possible upon? The fact that you yourself repress such experiences and that you feel the need to justify repression, or that you have yourself attempted to utilize such self-therapy and failed, thus determining it not possible?

Quote:

---

I surely do agree that it is possible to repress the experience of being lonely, and that the simplest explanation is that there is no difference, but that the fact that such an explanation is simple in nature does not mean that the explanation reflects the reality of the situation.

absolutely right.  it merely makes it much more likely.  do unicorns exist since we find them on medievil tapestries?  or is it much more likely that their appearances are the result of human imagination?

---

Quote:

---

in what way?

---

In that our thought processes are a mechanism that creates our behavior. Our behavior is thus the expression of our thought processes. Ahem.

Quote:

---

what's the difference?

---

Quote:

---

surely it's more likely that concsciousness is to the brain as software is to a computer's hardware.  this explains the same phenomenon (mind) with fewer principles (you use the extra principle of *the existence of the non-physical*).

---

Quote:

---

question: do you find hunger uncomfortable?

---

Quote:

---

surely a person's thought process leads them to seek food when they're hungry.

---

Obviously, a person's thought processes in response to the signal represented by the word hunger can lead them to seek food, just as someone who is fasting's thought processes will lead them to not seek food. Does someone who fasts repress their feeling of being hungry? From what I understand of the nature of fasting, the entire purpose is to embrace the experience of the physical feeling but to destroy the addictive response to immediately satisfy the feeling.

I'm sure it is possible to repress the experience of being hungry, but yet it is entirely possible to not repress it but to not satisfy the conditions that the mechanism creating the signal demands. What basis is your arguement resting upon again?


i agree that focus isn't always important, but i think awareness is.  if i'm aware that i'm hungry, i can focus on standing up and walking to the fridge.  if i'm drunk, i will have to focus a lot.

And yet if you are so consumed by automatic thought processes that make you feel depressed, that there are an abundance of threats in your environment, that you are made to feel guilty and abandoned and worthless, etc. etc. etc, you will have even less capacity to focus than if you were simply physically inebriated. Focus is necessary as focus is awareness.


you're presupposing this is possible; i have shown with my occam's razor argument many times that this is unlikely to be.

You have demonstrated nothing with your misuse and misunderstanding of occam's razor. Repression as a simpler explanation for the lack of an experience of a negative state resulting from some responsible mechanism does not work when you cannot even demonstrate that one is engaging in repression. Occam's razor applies in situations where we have accounted for every variable necessary in order for such a situation to occur, such as the creation of fire. One could effectively use the razor to demonstrate that the necessity of invisible pixies in order to create fire is bunk as we already have accounted for every participating variable and can create fire without invoking these invisible pixies. When you cannot even substansiate whether or not one is engaging in repression, it is impossible to use Occam's razor, it would thus seem.


this is a more-or-less solid distinction between what you call "physical" and "mental" desires: so-called mental desires imply beliefs.  if i believe i have no companionship, and i am being honest with myself, i will be lonely.  if i believe i do, and i am honest with myself, i will tend not be.


The thought processes responsible for mental desires can be rational or as irrational as you would like them to be. This is no arguement agansit anything.


still, this exlcudes the possibility that a person can choose their beliefs.  can i choose to believe that 2+2=5?  can you choose to believe you can fly through will alone, and truly believe it?  for most of us, i think, there would be some self-deception involved for us to "choose to believe" such things.

You can engage your mind in any manner that you wish. If you were truly devoted to believing that one can fly through will alone, you would actively participate in restructuring your thought processes in order to allow for such a belief - just as people allow for the belief in the common conception of a Christian god.

Your concept of self-deception does not apply to the mind. If one thought is identified as representing yourself, then one would be attempting to deceive the other, eh? How much understanding of the mind do you actually hold? Which one represents the self and which one does not? They both do? Or only the first one? Is the self some concrete thing that cannot change itself? Can it not contradict itself in its multi-faceted complexity? If it can, then what is this deception that you refer to?



while i agree you can prefer these things, it must at least cause unconscious upset were these things to occur.

Oh, it must, now must it? Yes, human beings acting mature certainly is a rare and far-between occurence, it is no wonder why so many people think the concept of developing oneself and restructuring one's thought processes to become mature and receptive to reality is impossible and must simply be that of repression.


i desire these cookies i'm eating.  if i didn't, would i be eating them?  yet since i am eating them, plainly i don't long for them.  i don't think all desire implies longing, but only frustrated or postponed desire.

I am glad that you recognize that you desire the cookies that you were currently eating as you expressed that you desire them. I would like to see you recognize that, just as you desire such, others can operate in a mental realm that does not consist of desire.

It should also be plain that, as you are eating them, you do long for them. Want/longing for would certainly seem to be the same thing, and that is what desire is. Its the definition of desire. To desire as you are satisfying that desire? Sounds like a mental problem to me.


how could one choose to eat the cookies in front of them unless one desired them on some level?

Why does the ability to make a conscious choice need to be confined by a thought process that demands a certain choice? Can a random number generator select a number without desiring that number on a certain level? Desire and free choice based on unattached preference are two entirely different methods of operation, and both are equally possible, dependant on and relative to the individual and their mind. The fact that one person such as yourself operates with desire does not mean that others do not. You take your own experience of your mind and demand that it is the same for everyone, as it is all that you know. The mind is far too dynamic and diverse to operate in such a limited sense for everyone, as everyone has different experience.


yet this experience could be accounted for through repression.  my question was, why do you think that this isn't repression?

I realize what your question was, it should be plainly obvious what your question is as it has been repeatedly offered even after it has been directly answered. I'm sorry that my previous answer wasn't what you expected of myself, reality doesn't conform to expectations, but I am too focused on productive discussion to spin my tires so repeatedly and in overwhelming vain.


here's the traits as i'm using them: putting a feeling out of awareness.

By your definition, thus, satisfying one's feeling of hunger by consuming food is repression as it consists of taking action that puts feeling out of one's awareness. Repression certainly is the simplest explanation that explains all behavior, now isn't it.


what if you pushed the effort from awareness as well?

Then the pushing of that effort would be conscious, and the same would apply.


once more, i agree, it merely makes the situation much more likely.

Simplest explanation = more likely. Not so.


my understanding is that processing through something implies removing emotions from repression.

So to perform mental work as the result of therapy in order to get to the source of consciously experienced depression implies repressing such emotion? I thought the nature of repression was such that it removed such emotion from conscious awareness.

This therapy would involve finding the specific thought process responsible for the emotion that is being experienced and reprogramming it so that its subsequent inflicted emotions will not be initiated. The specific thought process would, by nature, be subconscious. Such therapy would involve removing repression, as repression is apparently forcing certain thoughts and subsequent feelings into the subconscious. So how is doing so in itself repression?


i think we fear something if we find it threatening.  the cat turns out not to be threatening.

And what aspect of ourself associated the cat with being threatening in the first place? That is what is identified for what it is and is consciously reprogrammed. That is exactly what is being addressed here!


  yet the only reason the belief changed is because of integration of information about the outside world, not because the person chose not to fear, or chose to discard their belief.

Integration of information concerning one's environment, in itself, is not what is responsible for the mental change. It is an active, conscious process that takes into consideration this new information, analyzes its previous thought process that associated the concept of a cat with being a threat to oneself and subsequently inflicted negative emotions such as fear upon oneself, and thus reprograms it so that it no longer inflicts such emotion. This is not repression. It doesn't force the emotion or the thought process into the subconscious. It consciously alters it. The Db that emits from my keyboard will never come into being if I do not initially strike the key that is responsible.



for example how can a person choose not to feel lonely?

This has already been addressed.


by thoughts i assume you mean beliefs.  yet if what you say were true, a person could choose to believe the earth is flat, that 2+2=5, etc.  somehow i think a person could only choose to "believe" these things is through self-deception, if they're already acquainted with much evidence to the contrary.

And what evidence would amount to the condemnation to always feel lonely if one is not with companionship? The fact that one has always felt lonely if one is without companionship? Apparently, according to you, the fact that one has existed with certain thoughts in the past means that one cannot change into a different form without deceiving oneself. This does not make sense.


is it possiblt to fully accept one's feelings and strive to change them through an act of will?

Ja.


Peace.

Quote:

---

crunchytoast said:
you have failed to show how thru the example you give, that it must end in an end to desire, and not repression.

---

Quote:

---

my argument is based on what i thought was a common assumption: that some people repress emotion sometimes.

---

You attempt to propose as a more likely, more simple explanation that anyone who does not consciously experience a negative experience in any situation is simply repressing that emotion because some people sometimes repress emotion? It would be analogous to propose that anyone in a relationship is merely participating in that relationship in an effort to eventually con the other person out of their money, as some people who engage in relationships with others are sometimes con artists seeking to steal money.

Quote:

---

it's not lazy if there's a way of verifying one over the other hypothesis.  do you have such a way?

---

Quote:

---

  if there's no way of determining which is which, then concluding as i conclude is no different than concluding that unicorns don't exist, despite the "evidence" that they exist contained in medievil art.

---

Medevil art is no effective evidence (I realize that you weren't suggesting that it is ) by which to conclude the actual existance of what that art represents. Behavior is no effective evidence to anyone who is not privledged with the experience of the thoughts of the person in question themself. I can create a quite convincing display of being uncontrollably upset, and even scream as I writhe that I am not angry, but yet there is nothing in this that demonstrates that I am actually experiencing a state of anger and that I am simply repressing it from being experienced consciously.

Quote:

---

it's scientific because science is based on the principle of occam's razor.

---

Quote:

---

note: theory 2 is still problematic, even if it weren't cut away by occam's razor, since there would nevertheless be no way to tell whether a particular instance of non-attachment was indeed that, or repression.

---

Quote:

---

huh?  what if a group of people are playing poker and a bomb goes off, killing them all?  then you would never know their thoughts, and there would be no behavior that would evidence their thoughts.  surely thoughts and behavior don't ALWAYS go together, in every conceivable circumstance.

---

Quote:

---

what emotion is that in your example?

---

Quote:

---

do most people have companions, as you can tell?  why would they have companions if they didn't desire compaionship?

---

Quote:

---

belief in christianity is surely a learned trait.  yet the majority of the world's population seems to desire companionship, but this isn't true of a learned trait such as christianity.

---

But yet it is true of a learned trait such as the need for companionship. I don't believe that feral children openly seek companionship with others.... You have yet to demonstrate that it is not a learned trait but yet is an instinctual drive. If it is an instinctual drive, then it would seem likely that we would all seek the same amount of companionship and the same manner of engaging in companionship. As if everyone travelling the path alone is simply repressing their need for companionship. You have yet to demonstrate that companionship is a need.

Quote:

---

this can be equally explained by the pure repressive hypothesis: either a) you are repressing your need for companionship from your awareness; or b) you have satisfied your need for companionship some way.

---

Perhaps I have satisfied my need for companionship by not having any companionship! You yourself stated that you desire your cookies as you are attempting to satisfy your desire for them. It would seem impossible for you to satisfy your need. Perhaps you simply start to repress your need for companionship or for food after other aspects of yourself start sending you signals that say to let up on your attempts to satisfy those initial signals! (the discomfort of a full stomach) It is as such that your repression concept is inherently flawed and that multitudes are necessary!

Quote:

---

please, tell me fwg, how you know for a fact both a) that you're not repressing your need for companionship, and b) that you havent satisfied your need for companionship some other way?

---

Because I do not even know for fact if there exists a need for companionship or that satisfying it is even possible. There seems to be no method by which to verify any of this. Thus, it does not concern ourselves and does not apply to ourselves as it does not interact with ourselves in any manner - if it did, we would have means by which to identify and verify it.

Perhaps there lies dormant in my subsconscious some thought process that demands a need for companionship. As there is no experience of any subsequent thought or feeling that plays a role in any aspect of my experience of my thought processes, its existance is merely hypothetical. Quite possible, but my state of being and the processes I engage in are not effected by it in any manner. It does not pertain to me. It does nothing that can be observed, it does not interact with my processes in any way. Its existance is as probable as that of the little, invisible monkey on Saturn that does not release any energy.

Quote:

---

sounds like you're misunderstanding occam's razor.  occam's razor says, when you have two explanations, you select the simpler one.  i don't need to show that self-therapy is necessarily repression, only that it could be equally explained by it.

---

You have not verified or demonstrated that it can act as the mechanics responsible for the phenomenon, and you have not demonstrated how it is a simpler explanation either. You have no right to use such a razor.

Quote:

---

  if a person says, 'i only prefer have friends, i'm not addicted to friends' would that make such a statement necessarily true?  surely no more than saying '2+2=5' would make it so.

---

Surely not. Not one single person in this thread has ever implied that introducing a single thought that expresses some idea or concept automatically transforms that person's thought processes and experience. I do not know understand why you are debating points that have no relation to that which is being discussed in this thread.

Quote:

---

yet such a person changes what's in their conscious awareness.  perhaps this change constitutes a real change in their desiring process.  or perhaps this change is merely repression.  which is the simpler explanation?

---

The simpler explanation is that such a person changes what is within their conscious awareness. Whether or not this change in their conscious awareness thus constitutes an actual change in the mechanism responsible for choice (referring to it as a "desiring process" is presumptuous) requires more variables and more analyzation to determine. Neither repression or the concept of reprogramming one's thought processes is a simpler explanation.

Your entire proposal rests firmly upon the assertion that it is the simpler explanation, but it has yet to be demonstrated that it is even a possible explanation for the phenomenon that cannot even be verified.


see, the thing is, it's about an explanation for the observed phenomena.  magic doesn't do a good job of explaining how you've attached an electric supply to the lightbulb, etc, or as you put it 'observation.'

Neither does repression. No demonstration that repression even occurs.


considering this debate, you'd have to provide an observation that couldn't be 100% explained with repression, but which could be explained 100% with non-attachment.  because then you have a theory that fits the evidence better, and you use that.  but with two theories that have different number of principles but the same observations for each - that's where the razor comes in, and cuts away non-attachment.

The razor does not make an entrance, let alone slice away one explanation by the exact reasoning that would equally slice away the other one.


the other day i was pissed off and felt like punching someone in the face.  yet i didn't.  yet i felt like doing so.

Are you implying that you repressed the signal that expressed that it was necessary to punch someone else in the face in order to satisfy a state of anger? No fucking duh repression is a more simple explanation in such a situation - as the concept that I propose does not even apply in such a situation. If my concept was utilized, one would have never gotten pissed off and would have never experienced the desire to punch someone in the face as a result. My concept, if applied beforehand, would not necessitate an unnecessary and irrational experience of anger and a childish necessity to physically abuse another human being to fufill some irrational "need" of one's own.


my position is that mind is a physical process, since this accords with observation in a more parsimonious fashion.

It is a physical process that is not experienced physically? The experience of the mind does not have physical attributes.


the brain?

Where is the thought that you are currently in the process of thinking?


what i mean by self-deception is what i had in mind when i talked about a person who appeared to be angry but said they werent.

You cannot deceive the self when the self is the culmination of what concerns it. The deception is the self just as much as it is that which the deception conceals.


plainly this associative chain of longing-wanting-desiring is shown to be false by the fact that i wouldn't continue to eat cookies if i stopped desiring them as i began eating them.

I would surmise that you never cease to desire the cookies within the perspective of repression, just that other signals would become more apparent and you would cease satisfying the initial desire in order to attempt to satisfy them. I would personally hate to be in a state of being bound and controlled by a perpetual state of a futile attempt to fufill addictions.


people aren't random number generators.  in fact their behaviors can often be predicted quite well in controlled environments. 

People aren't random number generators when their mental programming differs from the programming responsible for the function of a random number generator. People are what their mental programming is, and their mental programming can manifest in any manner. If people embrace preference instead of desire, they can make decisions without any attachment to any outcome, which will prevent any ignornant infliction of negative experience upon themself.


"putting a feeling out of awareness through force of will alone"
honestly this seems like nitpicking to me.  do you sincerely not understand the concept?  the meaning should be obvious from its use.

The definition of will is the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action and the act of exercising that faculty. The definition of will implies consciousness, as it is a deliberate choice. The definition of repression implies an unconscious activity that is not made conscious. Repression is not an act of will, despite your claims. I feel that you are the one who does not understand.

I'm sure it seems to be nitpicking when another expects you to use your own concepts in ways that do not negate your own concept.


yes indeed, an effort would be conscious, but its object repressed.  this accords with what's been described as non-attachment in this thread 'focus on the thought process, see their illusory nature' sounds like exactly the sort of effort i'm talking about.

If the effort would be conscious, then cessation of applying the effort would thrust the object of the effort back into consciousness. The fact that the effort occurs consciously would be evidence to the conscious presence that it is engaging in the act of repression, as such action is conscious. Not only that, but repression itself is not a conscious action. I fear that you are completely confused.


is it more likely that unicorns don't exist than that they do?  why?

There is no manner by which we can determine which possibillity is more likely. Just as your entire contention, the razor does not apply. Pages and pages of replies based on something that you cannot actually use as a base? What has all of your effort been for?


i'm so confused!  yes that's repression.  yes, "process" in therapy as it's frequently defined among psychodynamic and humanist therapists at least, is a way of exploring repressed feelings and thereby "un-repressing" them.

It is this action of identifying the thought processes responsible for these feelings, repressed or not, and reforming these processes in order to either unrepress them or to make them unable to produce the unnecessary, negative emotion again that is the cornerstone of my concept. Are you agreeing with me?


you're assuming that this is possible in the first place.  therefore you argument is implicitly structured this way:

1. assumption: this is possible in the first place
2. repression is got rid of.
3. this proves that this is possible.

the word for this is circular reasoning.

I thought the word for it was the scientific method. You know, establish a theory, define an experiment, carry it out, analyze the results in relation to the theory, repeat ad infinitum.


this notion that the emotion must come from inside can equally be explained by saying the emotion must come from an interaction of inside and outside.

On condition that there is a mental process that observes external conditions and associates the presence of a certain aspect with the necessity of the internal experience of the emotion. The external conditions themself do not imply any necessity of the experience of any emotion.


i don't think so.  i think something unique happens when a person fully accepts their feelings, and fully becomes them.  that's true change, IMO; the unfolding of the process.

I think something unique and inspiring occurs when one analyzes and builds an understanding of the nature of their mind and the way it engages its data collected through the sense of reality and the way it analyzes and interprets that data and then chooses which way we will experience the subsequent sense of reality. Upon the realization that we can consciously influence the manner in which we intrepret reality, the oppurtunity for real change is born.

True change does not consist of assuming that, when I am verbally accosted, it is a natural aspect of myself to become emotionally upset and feel an irrational necessity to inflict physical suffering upon another human. True change would consist of never having one's only oppurtunity to experience life violated by needless, negative suffering, and to have an automatic impulse to act a certain way within a situation that the mechanism responsible for the automatic impulse has never been in before.

True change would consist of increasing one's level of consciousness, not decreasing it.


Peace.

Quote:

---

The principle of Occam's razor is based in science, rather. If it is not properly utilized, then it would not be based in science. I assert that more variables need to be taken into consideration in order to properly represent the actuality of the situation. If more variables need to be taken into consideration, then this razor will not apply.

---

Quote:

---

Your example is just as much a demonstration that repression is responsible as my example demonstrates that the man does not have a thought process responsible for the experience of anger in the first place.

---

now we're getting somewhere.

so you agreed that both theories can explain the same phenomena.  and you state that the theory you assert to be true, requires more "variables" for its explanation.

here is a link for you that should clear this up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

It is a physical process that is not experienced physically?the brain?
seems physical to me.
Where is the thought that you are currently in the process of thinking?
i just answered that quesion!  the brain!

you're assuming that this is possible in the first place. therefore you argument is implicitly structured this way:

1. assumption: this is possible in the first place
2. repression is got rid of.
3. this proves that this is possible.

the word for this is circular reasoning.

I thought the word for it was the scientific method. You know, establish a theory, define an experiment, carry it out, analyze the results in relation to the theory, repeat ad infinitum.
wow.  nope, that's an example of circular reasoning.  the scientific method finds empirical support for theories.  saying something's true because you assume it to be true is circular reasoning.

here's two links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

also, since there seems to be so much confusion around the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

maybe a discussion of sufficient vs necessary would help?
"if s then n"
s is sufficient
n is necessary

with support for a theory (what science does) you find all these necessary things that would be true if s is true, and that's your support for a theory.  they don't make s necessarily true, but merely offer support for s.  however if you find a "not n" that implies that s is false, IOW it's a counterpoint to the argument.

with circular reasoning, s and n are the same thing.  'the repressive hypothesis is false because it's false.'  it's what you were doing in your post.  it's fallacious reasoning.

I don't believe that feral children openly seek companionship with others....
do you know of any examples of feral children that were raised together that stopped seeking companionship?

it may simply be that certain parts of the brain are developed in infancy, and rely on certain environmental stimuli for their development, and the reason feral children act as you claim they do, would therefore be that the appropriate parts of the brain weren't developed.

to summarize:
both theories explain the same phenomena, but repression explains with one less principle, therefore is the more scientific theory.

Quote:

---

crunchytoast said:
this argument would be an endless one.  i wonder if whether it's likely or not is irresolvable.

---

Quote:

---

  surely, however, to say that unicorns don't exist is a simpler explanation for the phenomena, and therefore the more scientific one.

---

For which phenomena, that of their appearance in medevil art? It might be simpler to state that they do not exist considering that we have not yet encountered any evidence towards their existance, but yet it is entirely possible that there is some distant planet that they live upon. Probable? I wouldn't think so, but it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.

However, if we set up some process, such as that of electricity, and declared that unicorns had their part in that process, then Occam's razor would be free to slit some wrists away.

Quote:

---

similarly, the repressive theory is the simpler explanation for the same phenomena.

---

Quote:

---

I assert that more variables need to be taken into consideration in order to properly represent the actuality of the situation.

so you agreed that both theories can explain the same phenomena.  and you state that the theory you assert to be true, requires more "variables" for its explanation.

---

That is not what I expressed. What I am implying is that more variables in the situation itself that we are attempting to explain need to be taken into consideration before we can determine which of the two explanations is more likely to actually represent the situation. I am not stating that one explanation requires more variables than the other to explain the phenomenon, but that we are not currently capable of taking enough aspects of the phenomenon into consideration to determine which explanation is more justifiable and which is more simple.

It looks like we are still not able to resolve this one.

Quote:

---

here is a link for you that should clear this up.

---

Interesting link, but it offers nothing more than what I have already understood of this Occam's razor.

Quote:

---

i just answered that quesion!  the brain!

---

As I currently understand it, the phenomenon of the mind as it occurs, is not physical, even though it results from physical processes. It would seem to be more holographic in nature than anything. Alas, I'm not a physics master, so I could definitely be wrong.

Quote:

---

wow.  nope, that's an example of circular reasoning.  the scientific method finds empirical support for theories.  saying something's true because you assume it to be true is circular reasoning.

---

I don't recall where I stated that something is true because it is true, and I won't feel it necessary to research your links involving circular reasoning and the scientific method, as I feel I already understand the basic concepts of both. I referenced the scientific method in that I have formed a hypothesis of the nature of my mind, and have made subsequent experiments with which I test different aspects of my hypothesis and observe the effects, and also simply making observations without any specific experiements. I have from this further refined my concept and related understandings. I am not someone who will proclaim something is true because it is true - I openly engage in debate with individuals who say the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible itself proclaims itself as being the Word of God.

Quote:

---

it may simply be that certain parts of the brain are developed in infancy, and rely on certain environmental stimuli for their development, and the reason feral children act as you claim they do, would therefore be that the appropriate parts of the brain weren't developed.

---

If the need for companionship was an instinctual drive, I would make an uneducated guess that if the part of the brain responsible for it was never developed, then other instinctual drives such as the need to consume food would not be produced either. Perhaps?

Quote:

---

both theories explain the same phenomena, but repression explains with one less principle, therefore is the more scientific theory.

---

It doesn't explain the same phenomenon with one less principle. They are unique explanations that have no need to be relative to each other. Repression could exist without mental reprogramming as I described it and vice versa. Which is this extra principle that condemns mental reprogramming? Equal explanations that cannot be validated outside of the mind experiencing the phenomenon itself. No just application of Occam's razor is available.

Shall we declare stalemate, then? There is no loss of honor in that.

*shakes your hand*

I'm pretty sure we could convert this thread into novel format, and thus get more people to actually read it.


Peace.

Quote:

---

crunchytoast said:
my argument has never been that it's impossible that unicorns exist.  i'm stating that the theory that unicorns exist is unscientific.

---

Indeed, just as the concept of conscious mental reprogramming is unscientific, just as the concept of repression is unscientific! As science has no current means by which to validate either one....

Quote:

---

i'm not sure what you're arguing.  are you saying, that because both theories are equally unsubstantiated, and both are equally plausible, they must both be equally simple?

---

Quote:

---

so you agreed that both theories can explain the same phenomena. and you state that the theory you assert to be true, requires more "variables" for its explanation.

---

No, I have not stated that it requires more variables for its explanation.

Quote:

---

what aspects aren't we taking into account?

---

Quote:

---

no offense, but i think you're wrong.  a non-physical theory of the mind might be worthwhile as speculation, but it's unscientific.
not that it means much, but i studied a lot of psych and neuropsych and computer models of the brain in school, and this is the foundation of my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

interesting question.  but what if the organism ate food their whole life but had no companions?

---

I'm not quite sure what it is exactly that you are asking. Anyways, I recognize that the urge to procreate is an instinctual drive in a similar sense as that for food, and companionship is a dynamic, relative sense that relates to this procreation instinct as it is only through some form of companionship that we can satisfy such an urge.

This would explain why there is a huge degree of differences in how different people have different regards for companionship. If someone stays alone and satisfies this physical urge by their own means, it would seem to be entirely possible that they aren't just repressing a need for companionship. Companionship would simply be a means through which we would seek to satisfy such an urge, and we may or may not associate the concept of companionship with that urge itself.

Are we reaching common ground yet? 'Cause I think this relates to that which you mentioned concerning Amos.

The nature of such physical instincts, however, is such that even if we receive them, it is entirely possible to make a conscious decision to not act upon them even as one is aware of them (thus not repressing them). I'm not sure if the signal would continue to persist. I see no reason to think that the mechanism that associates the signal with some expected action to be taken to satisfy it could not be altered so that it doesn't seek to be released, thus dissolving it.

To break it down in order to demonstrate that repression doesn't operate with one less principle:

We agree that there are instinctual drives, etc.

We recognize that they will send signals, and that a certain response to that signal will satisfy it (or at least appear to temporarily, as we cannot determine if taking the action truly quiets the signal itself or if it causes ourselves to repress it for the time being ).

The issue lies in what course of action is taken if we do not satisfy the mechanism that is creating the signal by the specific means it seeks, correct?

From this point, it is possible to thrust the signal as we perceive it out of our awareness so that, while it is still being sent to our mind, we do not experience it on a conscious level.

It is also possible to identify the signal and explore the nature of the mechanism in order to understand its nature and its methods. Just as repression is the action that can be taken at this point, it is also at this point possible to take and reprogram this mechanism in order to prevent the signal from being sent any longer, much like smashing an alarm clock will cancel its ability to send out pulses of sound in an annoying fashion.

Why is it that one operates with one less principle? It seems that there is one point along the progression of this situation that both options can be undergone as a single step. It seems they are on equal footing in regards to the principle issue.




Basically, the alarm clock exists at a certain point in time. It is set to go off at a certain time. When it reaches this time, it goes off! At this point, we have three options - focus on other things while the signal persists, push the button to temporarily make the signal cease, or destroy the alarm clock/turn off the alarm function on the alarm clock/change the time.

Obviously, if the alarm clock fufills a certain function that we consciously realize and intentionally seek, then its usage is beneficial (like the urge to eat when it is necessary to do so). If it has either set itself to a certain time automatically or by ourselves fumbling with it while we are half-asleep and in the dark, and the time it is set to is not beneficial to ourselves as we consciously choose, we should fully exercise our ability to alter/forego its use.

Sorry to go all metaphorical, but I think if one does not intrepret this analogy in an overly analytical fashion, that which I refer to by its use will be evident.

Quote:

---

does repression exist at least in some cases: yes or no?

---

Quote:

---

IF NO what do you call this? --> do you agree that repression exists in some cases?  for example, the person who clenches their fists, their teeth, while their face turns red, and shouts, "IM NOT ANGRY!"  what would you call that?

---

I would call it what it is as I have the ability to analyze and intrepret. While this behavior that is being exhibited would lead some to believe that they are mentally repressing the very anger that they are presently acting upon, we have absolutely no manner by which we can verify and observe the specific thought processes which would clearly demonstrate whether or not repression is responsible.

Just as someone can exercise control over their behavior as such to ensure that other poker players will not be able to determine their mental reaction to the cards in their hand, it is entirely possible that such a display could be a bluff, and that, mentally, there is no emotional outrage and repression of that outrage. Actors are specifically employed in this area of expertise.

Quote:

---

IF YES (repression does exist): then what you are saying is that repression exists sometimes, and deprogramming exists sometimes.  so here, the principles are:
*repression exists.
*deprogramming exists.

---

It clearly isn't a scientific yes, but we will follow through with a hypothetical yes in order to continue with this line of thought.

Quote:

---

so this theory has two principles.  now, contrast that with the theory that says "repression exists" and doesnt say anything else.  how many principles does that theory have?  does it have fewer principles than the deprogramming theory?

---

Which theory has two principles? The one that I have outlined? The theory that I have outlined does not relate to or involve that of repression in any manner whatsoever, and does not rely on the existance of repression in any way in order for itself to exist.

The fact that I recognize that repression "may" exist doesn't imply that it is an aspect of the explanation that I propose. This whole issue of principles and scientific verification of explanations as a result simply does not apply to this situation. It has been an interesting debate in that regard, but I am afraid to think that your entire assertion agansit my theory as being unscientific is baseless, and that it stands on equal, hypothetical ground as your own.

As whether or not either explanation applies lies contingent on the actual thought proccesses in question which we have no means to verify or observe, there is no means by which we can determine which explanation is more scientific. As repression is not a necessary aspect of my proposed explanation and does not require it or its existance in order for it to operate, the question of which explanation has the least amount of principles does not apply either. The fact that neither repression or that of conscious mental reprogramming can be proven to actually exist or represent the actual behavior and processes that they are proposed to represent implies that we have nothing here to discuss in such a manner.

Quote:

---

still, i disagree.  i'm confident that my argument is airtight.  i don't believe that you've addressed my argument for what it is.  i think that if we discuss the sequence of the proof, and if you have any differences with it, we could sharpen our debating skills, and with luck, come a resolution of the debate itself.

---

I hope that this reply more specifically addresses these points and effectively serves to work towards a resolution. We have certainly made progress amongst ourselves, even if it is simply as a spar which has sharpened our antlers.. urm, our debating skills.

You rule, man. We could start a new thread containing simply a list of all of the shit we neglected to take care of as a result of working within this thread. I must now excuse myself in order to go vacuum my entire living room floor by hand with a Shop Vac as my dog is a Norwegian Elkhound who sheds far too much hair for a normal vaccuum to be capable of withstanding (dude, they clog up and don't work in such a situation ). I must be a champion in the ability to create huge sentences that cannot be categorized as being run-ons due to the technicality of my liberal use of prepositional phrases.


Peace.